The strong similarities between “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Goodfellas” 

“The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Goodfellas” are both highly critically acclaimed, cult classics and both were directed by “Martin Scorsese” therefore it is not surprising that there are similarities between the two films, what is however astonishing is the sheer amount of similarities between the editing of the two films. I had previously seen “The Wolf of Wall Street” when I watched “Goodfellas” and was truly taken aback when I saw how much was shared between the films. 

Both films portray a “rags to riches” story of American men having their dreams realised and while one is a baker and the other gangster, both use illegal, immoral methods to achieve their wealth. Both films are narrated by the protagonist who gives a subjective, somewhat distorted view of events as they look back over their lives. This technique is able to progress the story for audiences, skipping over unnecessary information, while showing the personality of the characters as they give interpretation of events. 

Another effective technique used in both films is the freeze frame. The freeze frame in “The Wolf of Wall Street” is at the very start and shows the moment a dwarf is thrown at an oversized dart board, this freeze frame gives the audience a moment to process this bizarre scene while highlighting the hilarity of it all as this unusual image is left , motionless on the screen for a couple of seconds. In “Goodfellas” the freeze frame is used to similar effect as we see a younger version of the protagonist running away from a great explosion. Like in “The Wolf of Wall Street” the grand nature of this scene is emphasised through the freeze frame but while “The Wolf of Wall Street” shows us the humour, “Goodfellas” shows us the gravity of the situation and the power this young kid has. 

Louis Theroux and expository documentary 

Louis Theroux is widely known as an incredible documentary maker and someone who can effectively and entertainingly tell the stories of both well-known and very niche characters. While Theroux is varied in the characters he interviews and the stories they have, the constant throughout all of his films is that he is the one presenting them. It is through his personal interview style and offbeat British attitude that he has been able to develop a style that covers the lives of huge celebrities such as Jimmy Savile but also the incarcerated criminals of maximum -security prisons. 

Theroux is famous for his hands-on approach to documentary making as he himself puts himself in the situations he finds his contributors in. While some documentary makers might conduct interviews, get B-role footage and use an external narrator to stitch the story together, Theroux builds a personal relationship with the characters of his films and it is through this strong bond between him and his contributors that he is able to gain unprecedented access to places which would otherwise be off-limits such as the homes of drug takers and celebrities alike. In 2000 Louis Theroux made a documentary about Jimmy Savile and the absurdity of his lifestyle. The documentary shows us the bond between the two as Savile is more open with Theroux as he treats him like a friend and the documentary ultimately benefits of this relationship as we see what is supposedly a more honest view of this celebrity. However, in 2016 (after the passing of Savile and multiple sexual harassment claims) Theroux released the documentary: “When Louis met Jimmy” we realise how much had actually been hidden from Louis and his audience. Theroux recounts how close they had been but also shows the audience that despite this close relationship, Savile had been putting on a façade the whole time and the documentary had actually worked to clear Savile’s name and silence victims of his abuse while he was alive. This shows us that while Theroux’s approach presents more of a contributor’s life, it can never guarantee that what we are seeing is completely true. 

Regardless of the positives and negatives of Theroux’s expository style, it is certain that he has cultivated a style throughout his films with the constant in them being him and his personal relationship with contributors and whether you like him or not you cannot deny his success as a filmmaker. 

Why John Moffet’s documentary: “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon” is misleading and an example of bad documentary making 

“Conspiracy Theory” is a documentary directed by John Moffet that was aired on American cable in 2001, the film attempts to prove that man did not in fact land on the moon and the whole event was a NASA coverup. This film fails on all levels to give a balanced argument and therefore misleads the viewer into believing a biased and factually inaccurate conspiracy theory. 

The documentary is presented in an expository style and makes liberal use of an offscreen narrator, backed up by a host of conspiracy theorists and NASA scientists. Throughout the whole film there is only one contributor that challenges the ideas presented by the film which gives the film a biased and subjective tone. Despite the title “Conspiracy Theory” the film makes very little reference to the fact that the ideas and opinions presented in the film are all theory and instead passes it off as fact. Even worse than this, the so-called ‘facts’ in this film are laughably inaccurate to an extent that it is insulting to any competent viewer. It could be argued that Moffet has the right to express his personal opinion in the film, this type of documentary is at risk of indoctrinating those viewers who are less competent and leading them to believe facts that are simply not true. 

Overall, this film does not only portray the opinions expressed in it poorly, those opinions lie very far from the truth and is deceptive to viewers. Therefore, I believe in no way that this film should be classed as a non-fiction film and that John Moffet has completely failed at making a factual film. 

Cutting to action 

Cutting to action is the most basic facet of editing and therefore the most frequently used. Cutting to action involves cutting between camera angles of the same sequence while the character is still in motion and while it might be assumed that this action must be something drastic like a punch or a kick, it only depends on whether the action merits the cut. Therefore, even seemingly menial actions such as a character turning around or leaving a scene.  

While cutting to action might always seem the best way to keep pace in a scene and keep the action flowing, this is not always the case. It is true that the majority of the time this is the easiest way to cut between action it can be overused and spoil the action of a scene. This is all too common in big blockbusters such as in the Marvel franchise where directors choose to cut far too often and leaving the audience confused. Examples of this can be seen in any fight scene in these films as editors leave no time for action to take place and, as a result, we see the build-up to an action at which point the camera cuts and we then see the reaction.  

This style of editing undoubtedly an effective tool for the editor to use, however it can be detrimental to a scene as it is so sped up that the audience don’t have time to process what’s going on and end up missing the action of a scene. It can therefore be said that cutting to action is an effective tool in the repertoire of any editor but should definitely be used in moderation

The Cut away shot 

A cut away shot, like cutting to action, is a basic technique that is littered throughout cinema. This is not only because of its easiness to execute but also its effectiveness in giving the audience new information and developing their understanding of a scene. In essence, the cut away takes the audience away from the protagonist or action to cut to an insert of something and then back to the action.  

While a relatively simple concept, the cut away can be used to different effect depending on what type of cut away is used. The first type of cut away is to reveal or emphasise something in the scene that is in the same space as the characters. This can be seen being used powerfully in the work of Edgar Wright for example in Hot Fuzz a cut away shot of Sergeant Angel’s low reception on his phone to signify his journey away from London. This cut away is can be seen as a technique of exposition and gives the audience new knowledge of the scene without having a character explicitly mention it. 

The second way that cut away shots can be used is to reveal an idea or piece of information that is outside the scene and is instead something in the mind of a character. This second technique of cut away shot can be useful in showing the motivation of a character, giving an insight into why they are acting in the way they are as they complete an action. Alternatively, jumping into a characters’ mind can show us flashbacks which help expose ideas and develop an understanding of a scene. 

The Cross Cut/ Parallel edit 

The cross cut can also be known as a parallel edit and is when an editor cuts between two scenes in separate locations. A good example of this could be during a scene in which a phone call is taking place as the editor would cut back and forth to the characters on either side of the conversation. This can be a seamless way to bring two people in two different locations together and erase the distance between them in the mind of the viewer. 

The cross cut can also be used to intensify the action of a scene as two separate scenes can be cut together to show the actions of two different characters simultaneously. This can be effective as an audience may be unaware of the distance between the characters and the time at which their separate events are taking place. An example of this can be found in Homeland as the protagonist is searching for the antagonist in a warehouse. We see both characters in their respective locations side by side and it is only when the protagonist realises that the antagonist that we are made aware of the fact that these shots are not in real time and that they have already escaped. In this example we are given a more cohesive view of the action while tension is built and when two separate scenes coincide the scene climaxes and we are given the payoff that the scene has been building too

Jump cut 

The jump cut is when an editor decides to cut between the same shot. This has a jarring effect as we see characters and props move unnaturally, often to show the passing of time which inherently justifies the use of these shots in montages. An example of a jump cut being used to show the passing of time can be seen in the film: “Scott Pilgrim VS The World” as we see Scott lie down in bed and after a brief moment we cut to him being awoken the next morning. Through this jump cut we can see that time has passed and furthermore there is comic value to this jump cut as the little sleep he is able to get is emphasised by the quick cut.  

Jump cuts can also be used to intensify the action of a scene and dramatise often menial events. Once again, Edgar Wright is the all-time king of this and examples of it can be found throughout The Cornetto Trilogy. For example, in “The World’s End” we see a jump cut between 4 pints being filled, there is no camera movement and the editor simply cuts between the shots of the individual pint glasses being filled. Once again, the speed of these shots is used to comic effect when it is revealed that after the 4 quick shots of pints being filled, we see a very slow and drawn out shot of a glass of water being filmed. When put into context of one character choosing not to drink this jump cut singles out the water as the odd one out and the change in pace brings humour to the scene. Therefore, whether jump cuts are being used to show the passing of time or intensifying the drama of a scene, when used properly they can make a scene funny and intense. 

Smash Cuts 

The smash cut is an abrupt transition, there is no little to no correlation in the composition of the shots that are being cut together and therefore the cut is jarring to audiences. This idea of shocking the audience can be taken even further so that the smash cut accompanies a jump scare in the film. The smash cut is so effective for this as it often cuts between a shot that is calm and still to something intense. Cutting from quiet to intense allows the audience to gain a false sense of security in a scene before shattering this with a loud jarring cut. It is for this reason that smash cuts are usually found in horror films, as a seemingly extreme but simple and effective form of editing when trying to surprise and scare. 

Alongside this, various examples can show smash cuts waking up from an intense dream or nightmare as the shock factor of going from the dream world to the real world can be a shock to the system as there is such a great contrast between the two. This technique shows the smash cut being used in an alternative way as instead of going from calm to intense, this smash cut. These shots often show a character snapping awake and sitting up as they breathe heavily, representing a sort of catharsis. It is not a mistake that this sense of catharsis is also felt by the audience. This shows the versatility of the smash cut as it can be utilised to either take the character out of an intense scene or throw them into one as the same thing happens to

The Iris Transition 

The Iris is a transition that has a scene that goes to black throw an iris that closes around the character or object of interest in a scene. This transition was originally done within the camera manually, fading out the rest of the scene as it focusses on the character before that fades out as well. However, in the modern era of filmmaking with editing technology being far beyond what it was so the iris need no longer be used merely for practicality purposes. Despite a physical need for an iris transition, it is still used for stylistic purposes. The iris is an effective transition as it is able to leave a lasting impression by ending a scene with one point of focus of the scene being the last thing to go back, this can emphasise the importance of this facet to an audience or be used to foreshadow what might happen to these characters. 

Alternatively, the iris transition can be used within a scene to similar effect. The original use of the iris transition was to transition between scenes but nowadays it is also used to transition between shots in the same scene and instead of fading completely to black, an iris forms around whatever the director or editor is trying to show the audience to be significant. An example of this could be at a party as one character searches for the person they are looking for and an iris forms around that person. In this example the iris also has a telescopic effect; as the unnecessary details of the shot are blacked out, our eyes are able to focus on what the editor wants them to see which gives the effect of a closer proximity and closer image. However, whether transitioning between scenes or shots within a scene, the iris is an effective tool for editors to portray what they want, whether it be to leave that as a lasting impression of a scene or highlight something within it. 

The Invisible cut 

The invisible cut is deliberately unnoticeable and to most viewers it is, as it is named, ‘invisible’. This happens when there is no change in camera angle or depth of field but when the camera is engulfed in blackness while the cut happens. The invisible cut is essential for a director or an editor who doesn’t want an audience to notice the cut taking place when, for practicality purposes a cut is needed. This cut tricks the audience into believing that no transition has taken place and that the shots must have been filmed in one take. This deception of the audience can be powerful for two reasons: firstly, because the viewer remains immersed, it is easy to take the audience out of a film and almost break the fourth wall with a cut as it can remind the audience, they are watching a film. It is for this reason that invisible cuts can be found (or not found) throughout the film: “Evil Dead 2”; as a horror film, immersion is key for the audience to feel the desired effect of the scary aspects of the film and while editing tools like smash cuts can be useful for an off the cuff jump scare, it can be a lot more effective to build tension when the audience do not realise the cuts and believe they are actually there. 

One of the most famous uses of invisible cuts can be found in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1948 film “Rope” which is made up of entirely invisible cuts. “Rope” is the recreation of a stage play on screen and Hitchcock wanted to make this recreation as realistic as possible and therefore made no obvious cuts in the film. This audacious concept in the film could only work with invisible cuts as the limitations of using film meant that 1 hour and a half long take simply wasn’t possible. Overall, invisible cuts can be used both for practicality purposes (transitioning between scenes that would be too difficult to do in one take) and for stylistic purposes but for both of these uses, the effect is the same as the audience is immersed in the scene with nothing to take them out of this moment or remind them that they are watching a film.